The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Development Economics Page 1 of 5

Four Randon Econonic, Political, Geopolitical and Scientific Musings

First economic: The US dollar is down 5% over the last six months against a basket of currencies. And over the past year, it’s lost 9.6%. The biggest winner against a dollar has been the euro which has gone up 13% however, which truly is a win for Europe because it makes their natural gas imports from the US less expensive. But their natural gas imports are still a poison chalice. Expect the dollar to continue its slide, perhaps precipitously at some point in the New Year.

There were large moves out of US equities in the spring confirming the adage “sell in May and go away.” What September will look like is anyone’s guess, especially as Israel is more than likely to start the second phase of its war against Iran? Or October—that worst of months for Wall Street? What happens if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz and oil goes above 100 dollars a barrel? That would be great for oil producers, but it would be terrible for markets across the globe, even China, possibly leading to a worldwide recession, especially with Chinese growth being somewhere between 4% and 5% at present.

Regardless of what happens in September or October—both always being bad month’s economically for the US economy, America’s bond market and the value of the dollar will continue its downward trajectory because America’s lenders are now demanding gold for loans instead of treasuries. This smells to me like the beginning of the end of dollar hegemony.

It makes me wonder what kind of “store of value” the BRICS will adopt to support their currency? Will it be a basket of their currencies? Will it be backed by gold and petroleum? That would be truly hard-core, because it would mean we were in for a long era of tight money. Our entire lives, actually, the entire history has been based on easy money. And as you know money creation is only possible when using a fiat currency.

There are many ways to imagine what they’ll do. Maybe blockchain? Who really knows? But there are other commodities that do have a store value, silver among them, maybe even rare earths and others they could use. It certainly is an interesting time to live.

Second domestic political: Niall Ferguson in his interview by Charlie Rose posted a week ago on the Internet was asked about Trump‘s challenges of outright ignoring the constitution with the following question: are we the Roman Republic, is this or are we witnessing the collapse of the constitutional order like the Roman republic. Rose asks if Trump is Augustus. He clearly is not. I would say that Trump is more like Marius and the Kennedys were more like the brothers Gracchi. In fact, I made this argument on a graduate school paper that I got a very good grade on, but in which my professor seriously disagreed with my analogies. Regardless I would say that we are at the beginning of the end of our constitutional order, and that we are looking down the barrel of Caesarism. It’s on the way. Maybe two years, maybe four years but it’s coming. Will it be a general? Will it be a politician? Those are questions we simply can’t answer. But as Ian Welsh has consistently predicted America is heading for a collapse, be it constitutional or economic or both it’s gonna happen and there isn’t anything anyone of us can do about it. Besides, Ferguson, while whip-smart, is kind of a tool.

Third is about some weaknessess the SCO currently must contend with if they are to become the anti-NATO military block. Here they are in no particular order of importance: One, the nations that make up the SCO are too diverse and often times their interests do not align with everyone in the SCO. For example, China and India have serious border issues. Pakistan and India have serious issues in Kashmir. Those are just two examples of several potential conflicts between members of a block, supposedly to oppose NATO. The issues between Pakistan and India make the intra-NATO issues between Greece and Turkey look like a family arguement on Thanksgiving.

Second, as the former director general of Russian international affairs Council said in a recent interview, “ the mandate of the SCO is too general.” The SCO can focus on security, development, or terrorism. Not all three.

Third, China is by far the most powerful member of the SCO and that creates a dangerous asymmetry in the organization. Much like the United States dominated NATO for so long and skewed it’s purpose after the Cold War for its own unfathomable means.

Fourth: This essay on the relative merits of “Superradiance,”.  Is well worth the three minutes it will take to read, plus it is comprehensible to the layman. The essay describes Superradiance as “a collective quantum optical effect in which a group of emitters, such as atoms or molecules, emit light in a highly coherent and amplified manner.  In the context of mammalian neural systems, superradiance occurs when a group of neurons collectively emit photons, resulting in a stronger and more coherent signal compared to individual neuron emissions. This coordinated emission of photons across vast networks of microtubules within neurons could potentially achieve the long-range coherence necessary for the emergence of consciousness.”

The essay stands as a correction of sorts to Sir Roger Penrose’s “Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR)” theory of human consciousness, which Wikipedia describes thusly: Orch Or “is a controversial theory postulating that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons (rather than being a product of neural connections).” In short, says Penrose, “Consciousness does not collapse the wave function; instead it is the collapse of the wave function that produces consciousness.”

One thing we do know is that consciouness is decidely not computational and most likely occurs in the quantum realm.

As you can tell, I dig this kind of stuff.

If you’ve read this far, and you’ve read some of my articles and most if not all of Ian’s, then you might wish to Subscribe or donate. Ian has written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, need the money to keep the shop running. So please, consider it.

Canada’s Future & The New Carney Government

Mark Carney

Carney has won a minority government. He will have to govern with the support of the NDP. The NDP was slaughtered in this election, and there were a few ridings where people strategically voting for the Liberals actually led to the Conservatives winning. Iit’s worth pointing out that the Conservatives increased their seat count, which is why Poilievre is sticking around as leader, despite losing the election and his own seat. (A loyal MP will stand down and let him run in a by-election in a safe riding.)

The NDP lost their official party status in this election and their vote percentage was cut in about half by strategic voting. They need to bargain hard with Carney in exchange for support and be willing to walk away. The most important thing, for them and Canada, is to change the voting system. Proportional would be ideal, but it’s unlikely the Liberals would go for it. They would probably go for ranked ballots, assuming, probably correctly, that they’ll be the most common second choice.

But it would also benefit the NDP and make it less likely for radical conservatives of the current variety to get into power.

If I were the NDP, I’d go to the wall for this. There’s likely to be more polarized elections in the future, because the Conservatives remain a Trumpist style party and a lot of natural NDP voters will keep going Liberal to try and block them. If they want to get back up to near 20% of the vote, this is necessary.

Now as to Canada’s future: it’s going to depend on whether Carney can actually deliver. If he can make Canadians better off and win another election, Poilievre is toast and Trump style conservatism will be discredited in Canada. If he doesn’t deliver: if effective wages don’t rise and if rent and housing prices don’t go down, then Poilievre or his successor’s Conservative party WILL win the next election, just based on disgruntled voters.

Carney’s talked a fair bit of sense: doubling building housing, pivoting to new trade partners and creating vertically integrated industries within Canada. If he can pull it off, he’ll go down as one of Canada’s greatest Prime Ministers. But, at the end of the day, Carney is a neoliberal, and his impulse to always cut taxes on the rich and so on is going to hold him back.

He also needs a full term to pull it off. A lot of pain is coming down the pike and the next couple years will be ugly.

And that means he needs to keep the NDP happy. If they stop supporting him before he turns things around (assuming he can) he’s toast, and the Conservatives are in. So the NDP may as well force him to do some other things: pharmacare and universal dental, probably.

It’s going to be an interesting few years for everyone. Carney was right when he said:

America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. But these are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us. That will never, that will never ever happen...

Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over. The system of open global trade anchored by the United States, a system that Canada has relied on since the Second World War, a system that well not perfect has helped deliver prosperity for a country for decades, is over. 

But it’s also our new reality.

We are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons. We have to look out for ourselves and above all we have to take care of each other.

The old system is over. Carney’s problem is that he doesn’t see that for a ton of Canadians the old system hasn’t been delivering for a long time.

Every country in the world will have to adapt to the new economic landscape. Some will succeed, others like Britain, will fail. It remains to be seen if Canada is one which adapts well. What is certain is that if Poilievre gets in, he will usher in a new era even worse than the old neoliberal one. He will be prostrate before the US, will slash the civil service, healthcare and so on and will turbocharge the oligarchy.

So Carney’s it. He wouldn’t have been my first choice, but if he doesn’t pull it off, no one will.

This blog has always been free to read, but it isn’t free to produce. If you’d like to support my writing, I’d appreciate it. You can donate or subscribe by clicking on this link.

When Labour Opposes Rapid Technological Change

So, I recently saw this:

our obsession with jobs might trap us – everything could look like healthcare, still using fax machines when email and text exists.

“sorry I know this is possible via AI but we have our manual spreadsheet guy, following regulation 1284”

Leaving aside the word “AI”, because it’s not clear how expansive the use case for current AI really is, there’s a point here and it’s an important one.

He’s exactly right about our obsession with jobs, but I’d state it a different way:

It’s our obsession with distributing resources through money gained by jobs. A pre-requisite of speedy technological adaptation is people knowing they won’t be hurt by it.

Recently we had the longshoreman’s strike. The issue that caused the strike is machines replacing workers. Longshoreman jobs are some of the few blue collar labor jobs that pay well. If the longshoremen lose them, most will never get a job again that pays as well.

But the issue isn’t the job. It’s the money. And the money is just a proxy for resources: housing, food, heat, cold, transport, medical, entertainment and so on. No money and your life is shit, and probably short. Not much money means misery in most cases.

Labor; which is to say the proletariat, people who have to sell their labor to survive, embrace technological change when it benefits them, when it doesn’t hurt them, or when they have no choice.

During the industrial revolution people were forced off the land thru enclosure. They worked in factories 12 hours a day, for 6 1/2 days a week because they had no choice.

After WWII in America, people flooded off the farms into the cities and suburbs because jobs that provided a better standard of living for less work were abundant.

(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)

This lesson goes far beyond workers. No one wants change that hurts them. One of the main factors stalling industrialization in most countries was that most land couldn’t be bought: it was controlled by nobles or the Crown and they didn’t sell land if they could help it. The land was the basis of their wealth and power. Until they either perceived otherwise or they lacked the power to keep their land, they wouldn’t sell. (The game Victoria III, while not a very good game, is great for modeling this. Play Japan or Dai Viet and you will FEEL this: sheer hate of reactionary landowners holding you back.)

There was also the issue of money: for most of the Dark Ages and Middle Ages you couldn’t borrow large amounts of money, in part because the Church was against lending at interest and the Church was powerful. (There were other reasons, Economists include them in their hand waving of “primitive accumulation of capital” which is why sociologists, anthropologists and historians have written most of the important literature in the area.)

If you want change, whether technological or social, you either have to get people to be OK with it (for it, or not mind) or you need to remove their power to resist.

It is that simple.

 

Austerity, Demand and Reindustrialization

This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.

So, it’s clear from the response to my last post that some readers aren’t familiar with the effects of austerity on balance of payments and vice-versa. Balance of payments is, oversimplified, how much money is going in and out of a country.

When money goes into a domestic economy, if it is used to buy something that is imported, that effects balance of payments negatively.

If you’re selling more than you buy, which can mean services as well as good, then that helps balance of payments. It also includes financial games: so if people are sending money to the London financial center, well, that improves BoP. London’s the world’s second largest financial center, after New York.

Now here’s the thing. Britain doesn’t grow enough food to feed its population. It doesn’t have a lot of industry left. North Sea oil is depleting, to the point that Britain became a net importer of oil in 2013. (Take a look at that chart.)

When the government spends money it isn’t magically siloed from causing import demand. The government cut back on heating subsidies, for example, and limited child support payments to two children. Without that money, oil and other demand is not as high as it would be otherwise.

Indeed, nothing is really siloed. If the government spends, almost always some of that money is going to go overseas and spike imports.

Britain controls its own printing press. It can print as many pounds as it wants, but it can’t make people in other countries take the money. The more they print, the less the pound will be worth, and the more inflation there will be because the dropping pound will increase prices of imported goods.

The pound is not the world trading currency any more. It hasn’t been since WWII. It can’t print pounds the way the US can print dollars and expect everyone to just take them.

Austerity is, in many ways, cruel and stupid, but if Britain (or Canada, or Australia, or even Europe) is to print money without it causing serious economic issues and to actually reindustrialize, it has to be done intelligently, along with serious industrial and domestic economic policy. (Currently tons is printed, but siloed to the rich, which keeps general demand from exploding but destroys markets’ ability to function properly.)

Now the thing is that Britain is a high cost of living economy: food and housing are expensive. Very expensive. Workers need to be paid well to survive, and that makes Britain un-competitive against lower cost (or higher productivity) countries.

If you wanted to make Britain competitive again, you’d have to crash housing and rent, to start. You can imagine how politically fraught that is: people who have high net worth due to real estate aren’t going to like it.

Then there’s the issue of the City, the financial center. Financial center profits are HIGH. That’s a problem, because people would rather put money into finance than into industry or farming or whatever since returns are better. Finance cannibalizes the rest of the economy. So you have to weaken the city and silo it, and probably tax it a lot. That’s hard to do, because the City has a lot of power, and there’s a real issue because it does, actually, bring a lot of money in to Britain, it’s just that money doesn’t get spread around.

When you industrialize, or re-industrialize, you have to make sure that money in the domestic market buys domestic goods, doesn’t buy a lot of foreign goods, and is used primarily on industrialization: capital goods, primarily. It’s unpleasant, it means a lot of goods (imported goods) aren’t available or are very expensive. Your new industry, ideally, either serves the domestic market, or is good for export, or both.

Austerity doesn’t exist just because governments are run by stupid psychopaths (though that’s part of it), it exists because of very real constraints caused by a need to send more money out of the country than is coming in to the country. In the seventies the UK was in so much trouble it had to actually go to the IMF for help, and join the EU so Europe would help it bail out.

Now, again, there are ways around this, but they require taking on powerful interests and hurting a big chunk of the population, especially in the short to medium term (about twenty years or so.) It means, as much as possible, making do with what you can produce yourself, and when you can’t, going cheap. No foreign fresh fruit imports, except the cheapest (hope you like bananas.) Cheap phones and appliances. Etc…

It also means ending all sorts of stupid financial games: no more Private Equity. No stock buybacks. No huge stock option grants. You want money reinvested. Currency controls so money doesn’t flood out. Possibly a dual currency.

All of this is painful. But if you don’t do it, decline inevitably continues and eventually you’re back to being a third world country.

Austerity is a pressure bandage on a wound that still won’t stop bleeding. It slows down the decline, but it doesn’t heal the wound.

Update: Just for kicks, here’s Germany’s BOP:

And China:

The “China Cycle” Is Mostly A Thing Of the Past

So, this was true once:

The Chinese learned a lot from Western Joint Ventures, and I remember talking to a consultant back in the early 2000’s about tech transfer. He said it was very clear: you got into the Chinese market and/or used their lower cost production and what they got in exchange was tech transfer. This isn’t some evil conspiracy, back in the 80s when the US fell behind on cars they basically forced Japanese car companies to set up factories in the US, and yeah, there was transfer of knowledge to American companies.

Now, for the West, what Western companies and the West in general got in return for their tech was not worth the cost: it was stupid and short-sighted, but companies were lining up to do it and economists and business gurus and politicians in the West were for it: the only thing that mattered was making more short to mid-term profits and all sorts of nonsense about it not mattering where goods were produced was espoused by very important intellectuals and officials. There was no attention to the long term cost in terms of loss of technological lead and moving the industrial base to China. I know: I was one of the voices warning, publicly, to stop taking short term profits by selling China our future.

But at this point it’s no longer accurate. Chinese car companies are more advanced than Tesla: they have better batteries, better HUDS, better auto-pilots and they also have faster product cycles.

Again, in most fields the Chinese are now more advanced than the West: the remains are important but in a minority—things like lithography and aerospace, but they’ll catch up in both in time and for Aerospace I’d already buy a jet-liner from China before Boeing, and Boeing’s problems have nothing to do with China. Airbus is still clearly better, but it won’t be in twenty years, and possibly not even in ten.

The West was 100% complicit in the “China Cycle”, but that cycle is almost entirely over and China is now just straight up more advanced and out-competing us.

The West made this choice. We could have maintained our tech lead for another fifty years or so if we wanted to and followed the necessary policies. We didn’t, and to expect China to not use the same methods every other major country used to industrialize is insane. Every accusation made in the “China Cycle” is something the US did to Britain back in the 19th century.

Perhaps China could have industrialized without it being disastrous for the West, but not under any sort of laissez-faire or neoliberal international trade regime.

If you’re young, learn Mandarin. Maybe even if you’re not young.


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

China’s Rise Is Normal

China used trade protection and cheap wages & grabbed industry from the leading industrial power exactly the same as the US did with Britain.

 

The tech/science lead follows the manufacturing floor, with some delay, this was, again, the same with Britain & the USA.

The dynamics of industrialization are well understood at this point. The first books to read are “Bad Samaritans” and “Wealth and Democracy”.

Unlike Japan or South Korea, China has a larger population than America (same as America vs. Britain) and is has a large land mass and plenty of resources. In fact, it has slightly more land area than America.

Initial industrialization in England is an interesting story and still hotly debated. Later industrialization waves are mostly all the same. (The USSR is an exception, as are city states.)

Big leaps, as opposed to adaptations of existing models almost always come from states in hot competition, and among them the peripheral states usually win (Britain, for example, is peripheral to Europe.) The biggest tech surges in Chinese history came during warring states periods.

I’m very impressed by China’s rise and the West’s sheer incompetence in enabling it, but it’s not a huge leap the way the industrial revolution was. It’s just an extension of a previously existing model.

Japan’s rise was more impressive than China’s, as the first non-European nation to pull it off. But as an island nation with limited population, they were sharply limited. They made 2 runs at the US, one a war, one industrial, and neither let them become the foremost power.

The West was very good at keeping everyone but client states from industrializing. Even Japan needed British aid (the first time), then America’s (the second time.) But the West got stupid under neoliberal “end of history” ideology & let China run the playbook, thinking it wouldn’t challenge the West. Oops.

Americans probably should have learned from the Western experience with Japan. The British enabled Japan’s rise only to have Japan attack British possessions. Without American aid, that loss would have been permanent. But China is a continental power w/a massive population. The stupid was epic.

A radical change in economic model hasn’t happened yet, and seems unlikely to before ecological and economic collapse puts an end to the viability of the current model. Looking at Chinese cities with the 7 lane highways is instructive. It’s just a better version of the same old

A complete change of the permission system will be necessary for radical economic change. No one in power, whether in the West or China, wants that or can even imagine it.

Who knows, radical economic change might happen in China when collapse really starts biting. After all, they have the manufacturing base. But usually it happens at a periphery or in a tight area with multiple competing states.

This stuff is fairly well understood. However it’s not economists who put the pieces together, it’s sociologist and historians and even some anthropologists. Economists have done more damage to the West than astrologers did to Chinese dynasties. MBA factories get an honorary mention. (They mostly weaponized economic theories, as when they noticed economic theory saying that high profits come from not competing.)

One of the most instructive trends right now is watching so many people screaming about population collapse, when what the world actually needs is a lower population. (We could have avoided that necessity, but the window is closed. Sometimes you have to act at the right time.)

All people who yell about lower birth rates can imagine is economic growth through population expansion. Anyone who thinks that way can’t create a new economic model, they’re stuck in the old one. (Elon Musk is a good example.)

People who can’t even understand population overshoot are incapable of the thinking required to deal with the world’s actual problems.

We’ll talk about permission systems at a later date. As noted, they’re key.

Using Comparative & Absolute Advantage To Explain China’s Rise

Economists spend a lot of time talking about comparative advantage: France has just the right climate and land to make great wine, for example. In the Industrial Revolution England had good quality coal in just the right place. Germany has a lot of good industrial workers and craftsmen.

Most comparative advantage, however, is cost advantage. If it’s cheaper and you can produce it for less, it’s hard to compete against you.

Absolute advantage is different. Absolute advantage is when you are the only one who sells something other people want or need. For most of the 20th century if you wanted commercial airplanes you could only get them from the US or Europe or Canada (until Canada’s aviation industry was mostly destroyed in the 50s under threat from the President of the US.) Cars were available from the West and the USSR, then from Japan and Korea. Most advanced medicines were made only by the West, though India came on strong for a lot of generics towards the end of the century.

Absolute advantage is far superior to comparative advantage: you can charge much more.

This is the second article on the West’s situation via China. If you haven, read the first “You can’t run industrial policy or a war economy under neoliberalism.”

Absolute advantage can be created. The rise of England didn’t start with the Industrial Revolution, it started when England banned exports of wool to the Netherlands. Be clear, English weavers sucked in comparison, but it didn’t matter. England produced most of the wool, and if you wanted woolens, you had no choice but to buy them England, inferior thought they were at the start, or do without.

This sort of policy used to be fairly standard. When I was young Canada would not export raw logs or raw salmon, for example, but by the 80s we had begun to do so. African nations have recently started insisting on doing primary processing in country: refine the ore or hydrocarbons, tin the fish, and so on. It’s not the same as advanced manufacturing, but it captures more of the value. If you have a resource there is more demand than supply for, you can insist. Perhaps tinning or smoking fish in the US or Mexico saved ten cents a can, but so what, before fish farming there was never enough salmon.

The problem with absolute advantage, though, is it makes you lazy. When you’re competing on comparative advantage, you have to drive down costs or increase quality, or ideally both. People don’t have to buy your goods, so they have to be better or cheaper.

Now the problem is that for about two centuries the West has had absolute advantage. For most intents and purposes everything we made had absolute advantage outside the West. We had better weapons, machines, clothes, medicines, transport. Everything.

Japan was the first non-Western nation to catch up, but an island nation without significant resources, it couldn’t compete and was conquered and made into a satrapy. South Korea was given the same treatment, and allowed to industrialize, as was Taiwan.

I was a young adult when Japan roared in the 80s, but Japan was never a serious threat, simply because it didn’t have enough population. It was never going to unseat the US or Europe, only claim its place in the (still) Western system.

China is a different matter. The reason China is eating the West’s lunch is that it has overcome most of our absolute advantage and is now competing with us on comparative advantage: Chinese goods are cheaper and in some cases, like EVs, Chinese goods are better. This often isn’t a small difference: you can buy an EV in China for 14K, and it’s a decent car.

Further, China has a massive domestic market. Oh, incomes are still not as high in the West, but the population makes up for it, and Chinese industries mostly aren’t oligopolies or monopolies. In 2019 there were over 500 EV companies. As of 2023 there were still about a hundred. The competition was fierce. There is nothing like it in the west, where car companies are essentially an oligopoly, and don’t truly compete on either price or quality.

China moved up the technological chain. They actually practice competitive market capitalism much more than we do: their markets are closer to “free” than any western country’s. They have effective subsidies due to the exchange rate and direct government intervention, of course, but that’s not the key issue any more (though it was for a long time), it’s that they are genuinely better at manufacturing than we are, and more responsive to what buyers actually want.

Many nations in the West used to have competitive internal markets, with a myriad of companies competing, but under neoliberalism, and to be fair to a certain extent under Bretton Woods liberalism, they were replaced by oligopolies. The problem with real competition is that you might lose. Fake competition is far safer, and offers far better returns for the ownership and executive classes.

Until, of course, you run into companies which are used to real competition, and they eat your lunch and you scream to the government for tariffs and trade war.

Mind you tariffs aren’t a bad idea, but if they are to work, Western companies must actually become competitive again and they don’t want to do that, it’s too much like work. Nor, as I’ve noted before, is it easy for them to do. Internal rent in the West is very high, and thus so is the cost of living. If they’re involved in a trade war, they have to sell to their own citizens, but the only way they know to reduce prices is to crush wages and if they do that, well, the internal market isn’t what it needs to be. (This is what FDR and Keynes realized, which is why New Deal and post-war capitalism emphasized having wages rising faster than inflation. It created a robust market.)

Offshoring anything another country doesn’t already know how to make is stupid, because when you offshore the locals learn how to make what you offshore and eventually they make it themselves for themselves and compete with you. “Friendshoring” can’t work, it can only crate new competitors with lower costs.

The days of the West’s absolute advantage are over. We threw it away for a few decades of high profits funneled to elites, and now we must learn to compete on comparative advantage again, something we mostly don’t have and aren’t used to being necessary.

It’s the bed we made and we have to lie in.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

How To Use China To Make Your Left Wing Government Succeed

Back in 2016 I wrote a piece called “Seven Rules For Running a Real Left Wing Government.” It proved to be one of my most popular pieces, particularly loved by activists. Since then I’ve often been asked for an more and I’ve finally written a partial update and companion piece.

The Sixth Rule was “Reduce Your Vulnerability to the World Trade System.”

This rule is still true, but how it is applied has changed — you can use a relationship with China to, over time, reduce your dependence on the old system which required you to stay poor and dependent..

Back in 2016 China was massively important, but the rules of the system were still all-powerfully American. Those rules are breaking down now and your government can take advantage of that. Though the title of this piece is about China, much applies to bilateral relationships with other countries. China’s the biggest and most advanced and most useful right now, however.

What working with China can do for you.

  1. Movement up the industrialization chain;
  2. Modernization
  3. one time infrastructure
  4. cheap loans
  5. Training and teching-up your scientists, engineers and designers.

All of these benefits are available, but you have to be smart and structure your deals to give you a long term advantage, China won’t do that for you, but they are open to such deals and won’t sandbag you. To use modern bargaining speak win/win deals are available if you seek them. There are limits, of course, but those limits are far higher than they were and are under the old WTO/US system.

How The World & China Have Changed And How You Can Use Those Changes

China is now the largest trade nation in the world and caught up to the West or surpassing it in most, though not yet all, technologies.

Post-Ukraine war it has been structuring many non-dollar deals.

These deals settle outside of the banking system controlled by America and Europe and thus you are not forced into structures which automatically try to keep you from moving up the value chain without being a US satrapy (like South Korea and Japan and most of Europe) or seeking moderate economic independence. (See the original 7 Rules article for how the old system works.)

De-dollarization and a nascent non-Western banking system make it possible to break the stranglehold the old international trade and finance regime put on left wing governments.

To take advantage of this opportunity you need to understand China’s domestic issues:

  1. China has far more construction and development capacity than it needs. It has built most of the buildings, roads, ports, hospitals, schools, power plants and so on it requires. China could get rid of those jobs and cut the industry in half OR it could use it overseas and not throw a pile of people out of work and destroy half an industry. This means, among other things, that China is willing to put up infrastructure for very low prices in order to keep the people employed.
  2. China has a vast need for resources: food, fuel, minerals and so on. If you’ve got it, odds are they need it and they want long term secure deals.
  3. China is moving up the manufacturing value chain and moving into services. In many cases the Chinese government has forced industries to shut down low value manufacturing plants that are still profitable. They want the lower chain industry out of their country, and over time what counts as “lower” moves further up the chain.

What all this means is that China is willing to build your country what it wants for cheap in exchange for deals for your resources and, more importantly, to relocate industry to your country.

You have to take advantage of this in the right ways, or it is just another trap, but it’s still a big opportunity because the US offered this deal to only a few nations and required satrapy status in return. Think South Korea and Japan and Taiwan.

This isn’t to say that China doesn’t have some non-negotiable requirements if you want to be cut in on the good deals, however, they’re just less onerous than the old US and European deals were. Let’s discuss that next.

China’s Non Negotiable Requirements

These are simple. You will not recognize Taiwan and will stay out of the Taiwan/Mainland dispute. You will stay out of anything relating to Tibet and that will most likely include not hosting the Dalai Lama at the senior government level. If you are not in the South China Sea, you’ll stay out of that dispute.

These aren’t particularly onerous, though you may find they stick in the craw slightly. Still, it’s a lot less than what the US and Europe require.

What You’ll Lose By Aligning With China

Simply, good treatment from Europe and the US. That means reliable and fair access to the western financial system, the ability to buy Western military gear and expect to get parts and ammo when you actually need it, and to a lesser extent, access to western goods and services.

The financial aspect is the most important, but will become less and less important. The whole point is bilateral or multilateral deals outside of the Western financial system anyway, and it’s that financial system which has been primarily responsible for keeping the global South down for the last 70 years.

The military aspect is negligible at this point. It’s clear that the West’s military production system is sclerotic and can’t keep up with major demand spikes: we’ve seen that in the Ukraine where they can’t even keep Ukraine supplied with enough dumb artillery shells. You’re better off getting your military supplies from China, Russia and Iran. There isn’t even much of a quality gap and in some areas, like missiles, you’ll receive better.

As for goods and services, increasingly, outside of pharmaceuticals (which they’ll withhold from you in a crisis anyway, as Covid proved), China can supply what you need, including advanced telecom equipment and more of the production stack than the West can these days. You’re giving up very very little and in ten years it will be essentially nothing.

What Types Of Deals To Cut

There are three types of deals you want beyond the basic “we sell you stuff and then buy goods from you.” There’ll always be some of that, but the idea is to make your country more independent and more prosperous and your people better off over time. That will not happen if you just sell resources and then turn around and buy goods.

Bilateral up the chain deals.

This means “we give you resources or low chain goods and you help us move up the chain.” If you’re not already on the chain, that’ll mean starting with textiles, most likely, but you have to start somewhere.

Bilateral Cartel Deals

In these deals you agree that you’ll own a particular industry and the other country won’t compete with you. In exchange there’s an industry you won’t compete with them in and both of you will buy the others products. These deals take a lot of trust: both sides have to believe the other side won’t cut them off in the future. One “semiconductor ban” and the deal is shot, and most likely shot permanently.

China’s capable of taking over most industries if it really wants to, but there’s an opportunity cost to doing so, and they need and want good relations. In many cases these deals will be cut with a side “and if you let us keep or have this industry, and buy from us, we’ll keep selling you grain/oil/nickel/whatever.”

China wants secure deals. Give them that security and be rewarded in exchange.

One Time Infrastructure Deals

As discussed earlier, China’s the infrastructure King. If you needs roads or ports or hospitals or power plants or almost anything, they can build it fast and cheaper than anyone else and the quality is good. Maybe not Japan good, but good enough.

You’ve got to cut these deals, all of them, right, though, or you’ll wind up not receiving what you want, or in the case of infrastructure deals wind up with white elephants you can’t afford to maintain. So—

How To Structure Deals To Ensure You Benefit

The objective here is to gain local knowledge, skills and capacity. This means a few things.

No Branch Plants. You want partnership deals, 49% China, 51% you. The plants or whatever get set up in your country by their engineers and managers, in partnership with your managers and engineers. At first the foreigners take the lead, but over time they are largely phased out, the capacity becomes indigenous.

Move the parts and repairs. You don’t want to just be putting goods together from pieces made elsewhere. You want the parts moved to your country too. Lots of small companies usually support big companies. You want that network. Without that network in your country, you don’t actually have industry. With it you have the culture of industry which is required to start making your own advances, to create new products and types of work. You have the chance to get a dynamic economy which innovates.

Buy Infrastructure you can maintain. If you’re going to constantly need the Chinese to come back and fix your power infrastructure, or roads, or ports or anything else, or to constantly buy parts from them, then you haven’t really bought anything. All deals must include the necessary training for your locals to maintain the infrastructure and that most of what is needed for maintenance is made in your country.

(This is a reader supported Blog. Your subscriptions and donations make it possible for me to continue writing, and this is my annual fundraiser, which will determine how much I write next year. Please subscribe or donate if you can.)

Be very careful about large asphalt and concrete deals. Concrete and asphalt does not last and needs constant and expensive maintenance cycles. The world which supports that is going to go away as climate change and environmental collapse do their damage. Find ways to increase the lifespan of infrastructure and make it easier to maintain, ideally with as unskilled labor as possible.

If you can’t maintain it, you don’t really own it and it won’t be there when you need it.

Educational Exchange

Let’s be clear here, sending students overseas to learn from more advanced societies isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. A lot of them stay, others become compromised with values which are inappropriate to your society and much of what they learn at university isn’t all that useful in industry, unless they’re in real engineering or science and even then, less than you’d think.

Still, do some of that.  It’s not a hard deal to cut, because it’s flattering to the Chinese and thanks to Chinese culture, you’ll see less of the students stay in China than used to stay in America. They’ll have to learn Mandarin, but that’s good. English will stay the lingua franca for a while, but the gravity is to Mandarin and if you’re following the advice herein, well, China’s your big trade partner.

The other exchange you want is to get your engineers and scientists and managers into partner companies in China so they can get real world experience with how industry and business works. Get them from the lowest levels where they see the factory floor to the highest levels. Have them make contacts, have them work on real products. Again, some are going to stay, but many will come home and you will benefit massively.

Most of the most important information about how products and businesses and societies work is never written down. You need your people to learn it.

So get those exchanges going. And if you need to flatter the Chinese a bit, swallow your pride and do it.

Concluding Remarks

China’s still on the rise. Countries on the rise are much more generous than countries in decline or even mature countries, economically speaking. There’s still tons of possibility and present and future surplus to share. The emphasis is on increasing the size of the pie and not fighting over a static or shrinking pie. On top of this China needs and wants friends and wants desperately to be admired. If someone wants admiration, it’s cheap and there is plenty that can be admired without hypocrisy.

Take advantage of this opportunity but remember, the goal is to increase your own country’s real prosperity by increasing your indigenous production ability and the skill and knowledge base of your own people. It is not to gain fleeting prosperity from selling resources or bottom tier products.

And remember also, this economic age, the age of heedless industry, is coming to an end. Build smart: lots of passive solar, for example. Trains and rapid transit, not expressways. Infrastructure that is easy to maintain. Goods that aren’t frequently replaced.

Learn from China but don’t be just like them, use them to create a non car-centric, non-disposable economy. If you do so, you’ll be one of the nations who prospers in the next age.

China is an opportunity to get on a ladder. Choose the right ladder.

SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Page 1 of 5

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén